House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Committee: New Clause 7
93
Ayes
—
355
Noes
Defeated · Government won
198 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 12 November 2024 on a Conservative-proposed new clause to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill that would have required a public referendum before the abolition of hereditary peers could take effect. The amendment was defeated by 355 votes to 93, meaning the Bill will continue its passage without any requirement for a public vote before removing hereditary peers from the Lords. **Why it matters:** The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill aims to complete a process begun in 1999 by removing the remaining 92 hereditary peers who were retained as a compromise at that time from sitting and voting in the upper chamber. Had this new clause passed, the government would have been obliged to hold a national referendum before the change could come into force, introducing a significant procedural hurdle that could have delayed or blocked reform entirely. The change affects the composition of an unelected legislative chamber and, by extension, the balance of scrutiny power over legislation passed by the elected Commons. **The politics:** The vote produced an unusual cross-party alignment in favour of the referendum requirement, with the Liberal Democrats voting solidly for it (67 votes) alongside the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and the DUP, though for differing reasons. Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against. The Liberal Democrat support is particularly striking given that party's longstanding position favouring an elected upper chamber, suggesting their vote reflected a desire for a broader democratic mandate for constitutional change rather than defence of the hereditary principle itself. This was one of several Conservative amendments considered on the same day, including Amendment 25 and New Clause 1, both of which were also defeated by comparable margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the Government to commit to further, broader House of Lords reform beyond simply removing hereditary peers
Voting No meant
Oppose placing a legislative requirement on the Government to produce further Lords reform proposals, preferring to proceed with the current Bill on its own terms
448 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 198 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
315
47
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
1
115
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
67
0
5
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
35
7
Independent
4
4
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
—
Reform UK
1
0
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
—
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
0
0
1
Defends the Bill as a focused, principled manifesto commitment to immediately remove hereditary peers' right to sit; frames it as the first step in broader Lords reform; rejects pressures to expand scope or delay commencement.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (5,486 words) →
Argues the Bill is misconceived and politically motivated; claims the 90 hereditary peers were retained in 1999 as a guarantee that comprehensive reform would follow; contends the Bill removes experienced scrutineers without principled justification and risks constitutional damage through piecemeal change.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,441 words) →
Suggests the Bill fails an 'efficacy test'; questions whether removing hereditary peers actually improves the Lords or makes it more democratic; proposes offering life peerages to active hereditary peers on merit as an alternative.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,196 words) →
Supports the Bill as low-hanging fruit on which broad consensus exists; warns that tacking additional reforms (e.g. removing bishops) risks undermining consensus and inviting wrecking amendments; urges passing the Bill unamended so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,233 words) →
Welcomes the Bill but argues bolder reform is needed; tables amendments to require Government commitment to democratic mandate for the Lords and to prevent Prime Minister bypassing House of Lords Appointments Commission recommendations.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,230 words) →
Tables multiple amendments extending the Bill to remove bishops, introduce mandatory retirement at 80, require participation thresholds, tighten appointments, and secure a democratic mandate; frames these as fulfilling manifesto promises and constitutional improvements.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (4,741 words) →
Defends the Bill as necessary principle: hereditary membership is indefensible in 21st century; notes Opposition confusion about whether they want more or less reform; urges all Members to back the Bill as first step toward promised broader changes.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,015 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0